CA: New Bill Would Expand Lifetime Registration Requirements

Assembly member Melissa Melendez has introduced a bill (AB 884) that would expand the requirement to register for a lifetime to anyone convicted of Penal Code Section 288(a) when the Tiered Registry Law takes effect in 2021. As currently written, the Tiered Registry Law authorizes individuals convicted of the same penal code section to petition for removal from the registry after a minimum of 20 years.

“We must stop this bill!” exclaimed ACSOL Exeuctive Director Janice Bellucci. “If the bill is passed, at least 40 percent of the people on the California registry will continue to be punished for a lifetime due to their requirement to register.”

The bill is expected to be referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where it could be heard as early as March 23. This is the first of many steps required before the bill could be passed.

Melendez is a Republican and represents the 67th Assembly district. Her district offices is in Murrieta, California.

John Gardner was convicted of 288 (a) and went on to murder Amber Dubois form Escondido. His case was 8 years ago and there hasn’t been another one like it since. That’s one out of 44,000 288 (a’s) on the registry. I’d like to know how many sex offender bills she’s tried to pass in the last 5 years. Luckily, most of her bills have been stopped in the PS comittee.

She was was the assembly person representing Lake Elsinore, where this monster was living at the time and on the SOR, when he committed these atrocities according to Patch news. Needless to say, the SOR didn’t stop this monster because all he had to do is go south to San Diego County to commit these heinous crimes. There’s no rhyme or reason to scale back the tiered SOR law like this in light of this. It’s pure and simple attempt by Melendez for another vote grabbing by fueling society’s fear and hate. Please let me know what I must do in terms of letters and phone calls to stop this latest attempt by this fear mongering and fact despising politician.

This bill must be stopped. Furthermore, why am I being required by Sacramento County to register at my campus police? I am not residing on campus but yet am forced to register every semester with campus police.
It is really ridiculous and must be addressed that a section 288.2 requires lifetime registration. So if a person actually commits an offense involving actual sexual acts with a five year old that person is a tier two but yet a person that suggest or even talks about a meeting with a 13 year old for sex is lifetime?

additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the University of California, the
California State University, or community college if that
person is residing upon the campus or in any of its facilities, within
five working days of coming into, or changing his or her residence
within, any city, county, or city and county, or campus in which
they temporarily resides, reside, and shall register
thereafter in accordance with the Act, unless the duty to register
is terminated pursuant to Section 290.5 or as otherwise provided
by law.

Mike R, if it’s you attend, UC & CSU have a two mile radius of State owned full peace officer powered staff and sworn staff operate on campus and as a STUDENT you will have to register even if only One Course/Class.
In ADDITION- to the City and or County (i.e., Stanislau, San Bernardino) in which you currently reside. PERIOD
See an Atty if they are in violation of your rights to having to register if outside these guidelines, even if not a student. Also contact the Campus Police Chief for further info. Good luck, I had to for only four years, it may remain ‘On FIle’ but only the time during registration of course(s)/class(es). Make sure Mike. Be Safe.

Hell for that matter, if you talk to any minor 17 or younger about sex or about meeting for sex 288.2.(a)(2) you are a tier three offender. So you are in what they consider the worst of the worst of repeat and violent offenders. Absolutely crazy…………

I really don’t understand how any non-contact, non-trafficking crime (you can be involved in trafficking without ever touching the victims), is automatically T3? I’m hoping that regardless of what happens with the tiered registry when it goes live, there will be a quick lawsuit regarding ZERO individual evaluation being done for tier placement.

Shit I am not waiting or hoping for that crap to happen. Every Californian should be getting together and filing a huge suit challenging the substantive due process of CA SORA in its current form. No other state has a statute that is not tiered or tailored in some sense. This bill is a BS attempt to save CA SORA because of this fact and nothing more. It is and has always been BS cover. I am sure it will make it harder after the tiering goes into effect simply because the federal SORNA has been upheld with its offense based tiers and the 9th has recently upheld the Nevada offense tiers that actually changed from risk assessments to the SORNA standard. I am not waiting. I am filing in superior court soon as I get the time to research and draft it up.

Well guess I will be filing in CA courts in the upcoming months. No one else is so here I go again. Win or lose I will not stand down. That 288.2.(a)(2) puts me in tier three and I will not stop fighting ever as long as there is a breath of life in me.

Here we go! I wondered how long it would take for some of these idiot politicians to start “chipping away” at the law that allows for registration relief!!! Yes, we must fight this, because if this passes, then more will follow until NOBODY can get relief from registration. Fight! Fight! Fight!

The most unfair thing about this is the perception the public will have being listed as a “tier 3” offender = high risk. If you are a repeat offender with 288 (a) you are already considered high risk/predator. If you’ve been on the list for 20 or thirty something years and all of a sudden you show up online as high risk tier 3 that’s bs. Throwing 40% more into that category seems like a lack of due process which i believe the 6th circuit said was unconstitutional. At least there is some precedence. This bill is purely based on not liking the crime. Although not really publicized there is already a tiering system here. Low risk (tier 1), serious offender (tier 2) high risk/predator (tier 3). I would assume most of that %40 are serious offender status.

This is absolutely ridiculous and my opinion a breach to the public’s trust rather than a step to protect the public. If all these people were deemed low risk and were not publicly listed, and NOW the public learns that they have lived next to these “predators” for YEARS, now that is a huge concern. Obviously, there was no problem in the past, so most likely, there won’t be problem now after all these years. This is complete nonsense and can only come from someone who has no common sense whatsoever and is oblivion to the obvious. Let a sleeping bear sleep.

The tiered system has no basis in low/serious/predator. Yes, that’s how they want to sell it, but it’s arbitrary. They slapped codes around into various categories and negotiated over them on a matter of want than any scientific bases. For example, I’m currently tier 3 because of my 311.4. My crime was non-contact taking an upskirt picture of a minor. Sure, that same code could also be used for someone who ran a CP studio, but a crime like that and a crime like mine are on huge opposite ends of the spectrum. The tiered system in no way actually evaluates individuals, but that’s certainly how the public will perceive it. So basically now everyone in T3 will seem to the public as the absolutely worst of the worst who raped babies on their lunch hour.

The entire bill is a joke. It ois a ruse to get around the constitutional challenge of no tailoring.
Now add in 288(a) and you have pretty much everyone covered. There is no way that this can stand as people that are considered extremely low to less risk than the general population are going into tiers with violent repeat offenders for life. This is immediately a equal protection violation as the legislature must explain itself and have a good reason to classify an individual into a class of offenders if challenged on an as-applied case.

To challenge successfully a legislative classification under the rational basis test, a party must prove that the facts on which the legislature may have relied in shaping the classification “could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 111, 99 S. Ct. 939, 949, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979).

The court must conduct a “serious and genuine judicial inquiry into the correspondence between the classification and the legislative goals.” Newland v. Board of Governors, 19 Cal.3d 705, 711, 139 Cal. Rptr. 620, 623, 566 P.2d 254, 258 (1977). As mentioned supra, this correspondence fails when viewed in light of the data CASOMB repeatedly supplies to the Legislature.

I believe strongly that this assemblywoman must have been sexually assaulted at sometime in her life. What seems as a rally cry for justice by her is pain be getting more pain and doing more harm…Nothing happens in a vacuum. The sad fruit of these kind of actions and measures will only serve to come back on her head in one form or another. It’s a spiritual law thing.

In my community the handful of people that has harsh positon on sex offenders are not victims or family of victims, but do like the attention and pay. One of these, their son is a long time resident of CDCR as a 290. Funny, no one do not hear from them, anymore.

It’s possible, but really irrelevant. Pushing anti-registrant proposals is simply political grandstanding and nothing more. While there may be a handful that actually believe their own tripe, most are either pandering for votes or covering up their own misdeeds and inadequacies.

I was so angry after hearing this I had take it out on some firewood that needed splitting. AB dumb lump of dead wood… I was expecting this. There is a handful of politicians here in So Cal who use SO hating to buy votes. Time now to leave the wood alone and bang out some letters!

I hate to add on more bad news…but if I remember correctly, Tier 3’s have to report in person for Registration ever 90 days. I hope I am wrong in this, but this is how I remember it.

In truth then, under this Tier bill if it passes will place many, many of us at additional risk…with a new substantial burden in out lives, (and potential chance to mess up with missed registering or whatever…every interaction with Police is fraught with danger for us {I think}).

I believe you’re incorrect in this. The tiered bill has no reference to this. The only people currently and once the bill goes into effect who will have to do it every 90 days are those that were specifically labeled as SVP (Sexually Violent Predator). Some states do have a tired registry where Tier 3 do have to do it every 90 days, but that’s not the case here. Not yet at least.

@Bay Area RSO – After a bill is introduced, it is referred to at least one committee in the body (Assembly or Senate) where it started. The committee will conduct at least one hearing during which it will discuss the bill and vote on whether to let it go forward. If the vote is “no”, the bill is stopped. If the vote is “yes”, the bill might go to a second committee. Eventually, the bill will go to the floor of the body where it started for a vote. If the vote is “no”, the bill is stopped. If the vote is “yes”, the bill goes to the other body where the entire process is repeated. This can take up to 2 years.

@Janice, then what can be done to stop this bill? I had hoped that the Tiered register would allow me to finally be free from the register, but if this bill passes, there goes my one and only hope of regaining my “normal” citizenship, livelihood and my family’s safety. Please help fight this!

@James.
Well if we did have to register every 90 days that would make us registering 4 times a year. Since the people that sponsored the original bill did it with the intention of lessening the burden on law enforcement this would actually quadruple that burden or at least double it since 50% of us would be in that category. Since Melendez is a Republican i would imagine she won’t get a lot of support, especially after this last election.

I’m going to take a strong interest in Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez’s district. Odd how I once was a strong Republican but politicians like her have me turned around. Well I guess I’m now a Libertarian. Much prayer is needed…

First cp offenders and now 288′(a)s. Put any more people in tier 3, they kill the very reason law enforcement supported the original tiered bill. The registry continues to grow. It was supposed to reduce the registry and make it more manageable and so increase public safety. That was the reasoning. Melendez is either really stupid or doesn’t care about public safety.

Not that he is unaware, I am sure, but I wrote a lengthy email to Scott Wiener, who initially championed this legislation. I asked him how to help prevent this partisan attempt to erode the very heart of the legislation he championed.

884 does nothing for public safety and is pure vengeance. I will help you Janice. I shall stand with you and fight to stop this bill, and as many other bills that I can, so that my children and their children’s children (whether they be 12 or 82 years old) can have a chance again in the USA….Land of the free.

I noticed that AB-884 has no supporting co-authors beyond Melissa Melendez. Perhaps the old method of beating former offenders with a water-hose is finally wearing off. We can hope reason is starting to prevail. Melissa Melendez has a strong hold in her district and will not be easily unseated but at the end of her time as an assemblywoman she can be stunted politically. at that point I will be looking strongly.

ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website. In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *9 + = 16